Veronica Pinto (Letters, last week) hints at a conspiracy in my defence of developers Barton Finch and their proposals for the Precinct at Hurst Park.

She then goes on to display an understandable, though unfortunate, lack of knowledge in the points she makes. Let me clarify matters.

Firstly, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a representative of Barton Finch. I am simply a Hurst Park resident dismayed at the degeneration of my community who is determined to see it rise like a phoenix from the ashes. It is in this context that I attended the developer’s presentation in the Precinct last year.

But I did do a little more than that. I took along with me an old friend — probably the best commercial surveyor in the country, incidentally — and asked him to talk me through the proposals we could see about the mechanics of such developments and to evaluate the scheme as if he were living here himself.

He did both, providing an astonishingly-thorough analysis and concluded with a ringing endorsement of Barton Finch’s work.

As a very good friend, he would tell me of any substantial problems he perceived with the development if he felt the quality of my life, the value of my property and the long-term future of Hurst Park were going to be threatened in some way.

He perceived none and felt that I, and therefore everyone here, “will be in an extraordinarily good position”, after the work has been done. So much so, in fact, that he is now considering buying a house here.

But, yes, Veronica Pinto, you must appreciate that privately-funded development schemes have to generate profit for developers. This is a good thing. It will not detract from the quality of what we will get, it will enhance it.

The developers must be able to sell the facilities on the new site at a profit to justify their investment. They must make it as attractive as they possibly can.

As far as my reference to “development economics” is concerned, just look at the cumulative, positive effects of the proposals. We will create an infrastructure where now we have none. This will increase our quality of life and provide local employment, hugely convenient for residents who will not have to travel far to work any longer or, alternatively, will be able to start work because they are unable to travel and now will not have to.

People will become more prosperous and some of the new money earned will be spent in the community, increasing business turnover and, therefore, overall prosperity. New residents moving into the development will bring their money with them and that, too, will be spent in the community. So yes, the perception of the area will change. It will become a much more desirable place in which to live and house prices will rise.

You are right about one thing, Ms Pinto. People do shop “wherever they happen to be”; Hurst Park residents happen to be in Hurst Park, and the majority will shop here.

Finally, let me please salute the residents’ association’s work in respect of this development. It is highly appropriate that we achieve a viable partnership with the developers to ensure that we get the best possible benefits from the new site, though the protestors, on the whole, see this as yet another conspiracy.

Peter Parker (HPRA), with all his years of experience, is an enormous asset to the community. As a positive example of this, both he and the developers are lobbying Shell, who own the petrol station site on the edge of the development, to gain better general access to the new site from the main road.

We have a great scheme and the majority of residents will be relieved to learn that it is not going to be jeopardized by the minority of protestors. We will not have to tolerate the dereliction much longer.

What we need to do now is move on and manage the fine detail. This may well produce additional development gain for the community in the form of better roads, traffic calming and perhaps even additional off site facilities for residents.